Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman’s truncheon over the anarchist’s bomb.

Agnew’s line frames a stark, law-and-order binary: when faced with disorder or political violence (“the anarchist’s bomb”), the public will prefer coercive state authority (“the policeman’s truncheon”). The rhetoric is designed to delegitimize radical protest by associating it with terrorism, while normalizing aggressive policing as the lesser evil. It also functions as a political warning—suggesting that unrest will ultimately strengthen, not weaken, demands for tougher enforcement. In the context of late-1960s/early-1970s American politics, the formulation echoes broader conservative arguments that social stability and security outweigh civil-liberties concerns when the nation feels threatened.